I don’t care about anything other than the content and form of your arguments. I don’t care about nationality or race, or gender. All I care about is building an international group of people who can teach and use natural law in opposition to the abrahamic, marxist, frankfurt, and postmodern schools. Aristocracy For Everyone. Let a thousand Nations Bloom. No people can fail transcendence if they choose it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 21:13:00 UTC
MATH IS DEAD SIMPLE. (Even if applying it gets increasingly difficult)
Math is stated as a form of idealism (mathematical platonism, specifically), and that’s the problem.
Mathematics consists (scientifically) of the use of measurement, by using positional naming, serving as scale independent constant relations, to describe constant relations in the universe, and to deduce constant relations from those constant relations, or fragments of constant relations.
I mean. Math could not be more simple. It’s trivial. That’s why its so powerful. We can use one of anything to describe any constant relation.
Where math has a problem is inconstant relations (economics and law).
Even there, we can identify some constant relations through the commensurability provided by property and money.
Property and money themselves being empirical measures of the time saved through acts of voluntary cooperation.
Math is really simple. Constant relations of position names provide scale independence.
Unlike reality, we can construct numbers (positional names) in an infinite number of ‘dimensions’. So that not only can we represent countings, but one dimensional (lengths) two dimensional (geometric) three dimensional (spatial), four dimensional (change) – but we can also represent all sorts of pure relations ( ‘types, or classes’). For example, spreadsheets that reference each other’s pages form additional dimensions. But there is no limit to pure relations we can represent with positional names (topologies).
Math is trivial. Just like binary number systems are trivial.
Thats why they’re so powerful.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 20:50:00 UTC
(Television is the curse of the American people….. Followed rapidly by the advertising it distributes.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 20:34:00 UTC
—“We can celebrate what we love about America while acknowledging and attempting to correct its errors. And if worst comes to worst, we still have the 2nd. That alone is worth almost all the other bullshit.”—Ely Harman
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 20:33:00 UTC
—“sometimes it seems you make cases for things that seem in contradiction with certain parts of reciprocity. I do think my primary problem of understanding has been discerning whether your speaking descriptively or prescriptively.”—
Well it depends on whether I’m talking about reciprocity (natural law) or aristocratic egalitarianism (rule by natural law). You can create ANY government and economic order under natural law that you want to. It will just be a truthful and transparent one.
You can also create a perfect government (aristocratic egalitarianism) which is what i RECOMMEND.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 20:26:00 UTC
—“Epistemology is our bitch now.”— Joel Davis
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 20:19:00 UTC
ANALYTIC VS CONTINENTAL AND ABRAHAMIC IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Analytic philosophy struggles to speak (testify) in measurements each of which is testable. An attempt to limit error and deceit. Because analytic philosophy rose out of the anglo system (empirical) which arose out of the anglo legal (bacon).
The consequence is that by deflation (opposite of the continental method) truth can be tested by the ‘market’ for those with a wide set of norms, traditions, and values.
The advantage (and purpose) of the continental (and abrahamic) models, is to conflate rather than deflate measurements with values such that one must submit to sympathy (consent to the values) in order to test the measure (if possible).
In other words, the purpose of the analytic model is deflationary to prevent the very suggestion and monopoly of values that continental tradition seeks to enforce, and to prevent the suggestion and monopoly of facts and values that religions seek to enforce.
In other words, the analytic tradition seeks to insulate us from the sympathetic coercion of the continental program of philosophy, and the authoritarian deception of the abrahamic program of philosophy.
The problem then is the same as faced by the ancients. One must retain correspondence and coherence between one’s method of pedagogy(group evolutionary strategy) and method of law (dispute resolution). The roman’s mistake was in tolerating the introduction of deception into the empire in the jewish, christian, and islamic forms. As well as tolerating the retention of Greek idealism. They had solved the problem of roman law, stoic ritual and virtue, and public religion and festival.
The germans have conflated religion and philosophy while preserving the deflation of law – although not as strongly as the common law prior to Napoleon.
And I have learned a great deal from the difference between the anglo method and the german and the jewish.
The more deflation the more innovation and adaptation and trust. The problem is, one must increase the prosecution of recidivism in one’s religion and education along with every increase in deflation of philosophy and law.
This explains most of history really as a battle between underclass deceit and conflation against the aristocracy and aristocratic truth and deflation against the underclass.
Or more simply, aristocratic eugenics vs underclass dysgenics.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 19:19:00 UTC
ON “THOUGHT”
by Propertarian Frank
Thought is a tricky name to use because it’s too entangled with Platonic assumptions. Tentatively I operationalize it as ordered stimulation (activation of those neural circuitries that normally get stimulated by specific external stimulants, or that are on the activation path of externally observable behavior (thinking a clause is the activation of the circuitry that is antecedent on the path to (1) vocalizing of (2) visualizing associations of, (3) associational perception of , or (4) a combination of other preset modes of action involving the clause in question)). I don’t know if this is correspondent with our current understanding of cognitive science, but I’m confident the end result will look like a variant of this.
So some of the things (I think) you would call ‘thought’, I classify as action. For instance mentally calculating 567*93 is an action. By vocalizing the correct result, you demonstrate that you can compute it (carry out the operations constituting the action). The idealization of language is due to an artificial separation of mental transformations from demonstrated action. The latter is just a special case of the former.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 19:01:00 UTC
METAPHYSICS, SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY ?
I my view the purpose of science is to construct measurements where we provide a means of sensing the otherwise unsensable such that we render it commensurable and judgeable. So Propertarianism is a method of measurement, where man is used as the unit of measure. In other words, perfect commensurably provided by the limits of human action within each dimension of actionable reality.
Now given that we are marginally indifferent in our senses, we can then testify to one another in each of those dimensions (testimonially) and test one another’s statements for (as Joel says ) both correspondence and coherence. So it’s just very hard to construct a falsehood ‘testimonially’ that we cannot sense. Since everything is reduced to that which we can commensurably (marginally indifferently) sense.
So I view science as the art of constructing measurements in logical and physical forms. I view philosophy as the means of decidability within a domain. I view truth as the means of decidability across domains, or independent of domain.
So whether you want to take those three things and represent them as a triangle, or a hierarchy, I guess I have taken the position that there is a hierarchy, and it is Time > Life > Necessity of Action > Truth > Philosophy > Science. But I might be wrong about that relationship. I am almost certain I am wrong. But I can think about it a bit.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 18:58:00 UTC
OUR METAPHYSICS
by Bill Joslin
Metaphysics and claims of metaphysical privilege (like platonists) I find aggravating.
Building from the simplistic trivium method – metaphysics distills down to grammar and dataset – the answer to what (object) when (what time), who (what person), where (what place)… The constellation of facts under-girding the claim.
But but metaphysics is about HOW things (whats) exists.
Now fast forward to Joel ‘s “operationalizing Kant”, where by observation cohere according to conceptual frames (Kant’s categories). Operationalism ensures existential coherence between the frame and observation – ensures the facts are reported accurately in relation to the frame. (Reporting corresponds to the coherence with observation).
This solves, or rather closes the door, to one of the most sophisticated means of deception ever – fucking around with grammar to predetermine logical outputs and defining grammar by a presupposed logic. It bridges a little notice but crucial gap between metaphysics and epistemology… Gunna upset some thomistic Aristotelians cause they can’t lean on their metaphysical claims anymore… But I suspect they will shout ‘niave realist” (which they seem to not understand) or “reductionary materialism” from atop of their ivory ruins, Ignoring (or not comprehending) that the above does not presume or presuppose materialism, reduction or realism – only relational consistency to any type of metaphysical presumptions and claims. In doing so only some metaphysical presumptions and clams can survive (ones which retain coherence from observation through frame to claim) which theirs don’t.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 18:37:00 UTC